Supreme Court to Decide on Trump's Presidential Immunity in Landmark Case

Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States United States of America
Delay in setting trial date attributed to Supreme Court review of immunity claim.
Legal argument for Trump's immunity based on Supreme Court precedent for official acts, but does not apply to criminal cases.
Outcome could determine if Trump faces trial on charges including conspiracy and obstruction.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Trump's presidential immunity claim on April 24, 2024.
Trump faces felony counts related to attempts to overturn the electoral vote count for Biden's victory.
Supreme Court to Decide on Trump's Presidential Immunity in Landmark Case

In a landmark case that could set a precedent for future presidents, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Thursday, April 24, 2024, regarding former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity against criminal prosecution. The outcome of this case could determine whether Trump faces trial on four felony counts related to his attempts to overturn the electoral vote count certifying Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.

The legal argument for Trump's immunity is based on Supreme Court precedent that absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for their official acts. However, special counsel Jack Smith argues that this precedent does not apply to criminal cases and could undermine the founders' vision of a presidency restrained in power.

The case, Donald J. Trump v. United States, presents an unprecedented constitutional question brought about by former President Trump's actions following the 2020 election. The outcome could determine whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on charges including conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction of an official proceeding, and other related crimes.

The delay in setting a trial date in Smith's federal election case against Trump has been attributed to the Supreme Court's decision to review the immunity claim. A ruling on this issue is expected before July 2024.

Brazil, France, Argentina, Italy, Japan, and South Korea have all relied on their courts to hold corrupt leaders accountable for their misconduct. The United States Supreme Court's decision to review the immunity case may delay legal accountability for no justifiable reason and could potentially undermine democratic values.

The court often has an institutional interest in cases of presidential power, but its insistence on putting its own stamp on this case may facilitate Trump's efforts to avoid a legal reckoning. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from both sides on Thursday, April 24, 2024.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • It is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule on Trump's immunity claim.
  • The outcome of this case could potentially set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Sources

94%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity

The Associated Press News Site (USA) Wednesday, 24 April 2024 04:08
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday about whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
    • Trump’s argument is based on the Impeachment Judgment Clause which says an officeholder convicted by the Senate shall be ‘liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment’ in court.
    • Special counsel Jack Smith’s team will bring up the 1974 opinion that forced Nixon to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in the prosecutions of his top aides as it bolsters their case.
    • Trump’s lawyers warn that if the prosecution is permitted to go forward, it would open the floodgates to criminal charges against other presidents for authorizing a drone strike that kills a U.S. citizen or giving false information to Congress that leads the country into war.
  • Accuracy
    • ]The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday about whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.[
    • Trump’s argument is based on the Impeachment Judgment Clause which says an officeholder convicted by the Senate shall be ‘liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment’ in court.
    • Trump’s lawyers warn that if the prosecution is permitted to go forward, it would open the floodgates to criminal charges against other presidents for authorizing a drone strike that kills a U.S. citizen or giving false information to Congress that leads the country into war.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains some instances of appeals to authority and inflammatory rhetoric, but no explicit logical fallacies were found. The author references past Supreme Court cases and their rulings as evidence in the ongoing debate over presidential immunity. This is a valid use of appeal to authority when used correctly, which is not the case here as it does not necessarily mean that the ruling in those cases are logically sound or applicable to the current situation. Additionally, there are some instances of inflammatory rhetoric such as
    • The justices have an opportunity to decide once and for all whether former presidents can be prosecuted for official acts they take while in the White House.
    • Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
    • But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

86%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Trump v US: SCOTUS likely to determine presidents get ‘some amount’ of immunity, experts say

Fox News Channel Brianna Herlihy Wednesday, 24 April 2024 11:18
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court is set to consider the former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by the Biden Justice Department.
    • Trump’s legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for his official acts, and that the same immunity should apply to a criminal context.
  • Accuracy
    • Trump’s legal team argued that a denial of criminal immunity would ‘incapacitate every future President’.
    • Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to give guidance on where presidential immunity from criminal prosecution ends for actions taken while in the Oval Office.
    • The Justice Department argued that a president has virtually no immunity when he leaves office, and the lower court agreed.
    • Trump’s attorneys have argued that the president has absolute immunity, even after he leaves office, for any and all acts.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author quotes legal experts who argue for and against presidential immunity, but does not provide any counterarguments or perspectives from those who believe in absolute immunity for a former president. This creates a biased presentation of the issue.
    • Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while all nine justices might be skeptical of Trump’s sweeping immunity claims, they are likely to give guidance on where presidential immunity from criminal prosecution ends for actions taken while in the Oval Office
    • Join Fox News for access to this content You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.
    • The thrust of Trump’s legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for his official acts, and that the same immunity should apply to a criminal context.
    • The Supreme Court is set to consider arguably the highest-profile cases of the term Thursday to determine whether former President Trump can claim presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by the Biden Justice Department.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

100%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Supreme Court takes up Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution

ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Wednesday, 24 April 2024 11:20
  • Unique Points
    • The case, Donald J. Trump v. United States, presents an unprecedented constitutional question brought about by former President Donald Trump’s actions following the 2020 election.
    • The outcome could determine if Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts related to his attempts to overturn the electoral vote count certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
    • Special Counsel Jack Smith argues that Trump’s assertion lacks historical precedent and undermines the founders’ vision of a presidency restrained in power.
    • A trial date in Smith’s federal election case against Trump was delayed awaiting a final decision by the Supreme Court. A ruling on the immunity claim is expected before July.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Not Come Between Trump and Voters

The New York Times Melissa Murray, Wednesday, 24 April 2024 09:02
  • Unique Points
    • In Brazil, former president Jair Bolsonaro was successfully prosecuted in a court and barred from running for office for years.
    • In France, former president Jacques Chirac was successfully prosecuted for illegal diversion of public funds during his time as mayor of Paris.
    • Argentina, Italy, Japan and South Korea have relied on the courts to hold corrupt leaders to account for their misconduct.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

94%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Fmr. U.S. Supreme Court Justice on presidential immunity

MSNBC News Wednesday, 24 April 2024 11:21
  • Unique Points
    • Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer believes the ‘rule of law’ is a weapon against chaos (not present in other articles)
    • Former CIA Director states Iran won’t respond escalatorily due to IDF capabilities being superior (not present in other articles)
    • Israeli strikes on Iranian consulate is a topic of debate (not present in other articles)
  • Accuracy
    • Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer believes the ‘rule of law’ is a weapon against chaos
    • Former CIA Director states Iran won’t respond escalatorily due to IDF capabilities being superior
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication